Solace of Thorns's page

As a standard action, you can make a charge without the normal penalty to attack rolls when attacking on a charge, provided that you use an operative melee weapon to make the attack at the end of the charge. If the attack hits, you can substitute a debilitating trick effect for the damage the attack would deal.

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but the phrase 'debilitating trick effect' is an interesting one, and I can think of a half dozen ways to interpret it - some much more legalistic than others. What is a debilitating trick effect and how does it interact with rules around the usual debilitating trick? I only ask because the notion of 'close distance and make a debilitating trick instead of dealing damage' seems awfully underwhelming, which makes me wonder if that interpretation is correct.

1) Imposing flat-footed or off-target is simple, but what about Debilitating Tricks that allow a save? An operative with the Stunning Shot exploit charges an enemy, hits, and opts to substitute a debilitating trick effect for the damage the attack would deal. He wants to stun the target. Is the 'effect' of a Stunning Shot 'forcing an enemy to make a Fortitude save or be stunned'? Or is the stun itself considered to be the 'effect' of that debilitating trick - thus bypassing the save and stunning without a save if the operative hits and substitutes damage?

2) Does Operative's Pounce count as a debilitating trick, or does it simply borrow elements from it? "Once you’ve used this ability to try to
stun a creature, it’s immune to your stunning shot for 24 hours." By using Operative's Pounce to stun, or to attempt a stun - have I used the Stunning Shot ability, thus rendering that enemy immune to Stunning Shot? This feels like a very legalistic question, but conversely the Debilitating Sniper exploit uses the phrase "you can use debilitating tricks" versus Pounce's "you can substitute a debilitating trick effect" which sets something of a precedent, which makes me uncertain.

> phágos - one who eats

I feel like the '-phage' suffix would be appropriate for a Vanguard rename. The vanguard deals heavily in the absorption and redirection of energy - a process not unlike consumption and digestion.

Entrophage?

1b and none of the above. Operative Weapon Spec doesn't include advanced melee weapons. At Op4/Van3, though, the damage would be 1d4 + Con + 3 (vanguard weapon spec) + 2 (half operative level).

But Vanguard does give advanced weapon proficiency, and so Versatile Specialization would mean an Operative 4 / Vanguard 1 would have advanced melee specialization.

"You gain the Weapon Specialization feat as a bonus feat for each weapon type with which this class grants you proficiency. You also gain a special form of weapon specialization for your entropic strike, allowing you add a bonus to your damage equal to your vanguard class level plus half of any other class levels you have."

Maybe this is just me having difficulty parsing the rules here, but is this 'bonus to your damage' intended to apply in addition to normal specialization damage, or in place of it? How does the damage progress for a class which dips into vanguard with Versatile Specialization?

1) A level 4 Vanguard lands a non-critical hit with Entropic Strike. Do they deal:
a) 1d4 + CON + 2 + 4 (Dice + CON + Operative weapon Specialization + Vanguard specialization)
b) 1d4 + CON + 4 (Dice + CON + Vanguard specialization)

2) A level 4 operative / level 1 vanguard with Versatile Specialization lands a non-critical hit with Entropic Strike. Do they deal:
a) 1d3 + CON + 2 (Dice + CON + Operative weapon Specialization)
b) 1d3 + CON (Dice + CON, Advanced Melee specialization does not grant any specialization with Entropic Strike)

The Nanite Thrower from Armory has the 'Deconstruct' property. The Deconstruct property begins with:

The target of a weapon with the deconstruct special property takes the listed amount of acid damage every round until ...

Unlike most properties, the Deconstruct property doesn't state that the effect triggers 'when you strike' or 'when you hit', meaning your attack roll is largely irrelevant. The weapon could be fired at targets within 10 range increments without worry since you don't need to actually hit with the Nanite Thrower to deal damage.

Am I misreading/mis-logic-ing, or is this in need of errata? An auto-hitting weapon with 600/800 effective range seems like it's unintended.

So, a drone can only take a single move or standard action in combat.

But can a drone 'mount' a PC and ride around on them? Say, could my hover / stealth drone hitch a ride on my Medium-sized Mechanic's shoulder / back so that it moves with him, using its action to attack from shoulder-top each turn?

I'm explicitly NOT referring to drone meld, nor am I trying to give a drone's abilities to a PC - I simply want to know if my drone can physically hold on to my PC and move with them.

A null-space chamber is a circular device often designed to be strapped to an arm or backpack. When you press a button on the

side, the device creates a circular extradimensional rift to a pocket space, the size of which is determined by the null-space chamber’s
model. You can close it by pressing the button again, causing the
entrance to the space to disappear. Anything stored within the
space remains, however, traveling with the item. The null-space
chamber can be opened and closed only from the outside.
The only air within the pocket space is that which enters
when you open the entrance. The device does not accumulate
bulk even as its pocket space is filled. Each null-space chamber
is associated with its own particular extradimensional space.
Each null-space chamber can carry a set amount of bulk,
after which it can no longer be closed (even if it has room
left for more material). Spells and items that contain or create
extradimensional spaces, such as other null-space chambers, do
not function within a null-space chamber’s pocket dimension.
A readout on a null-space chamber automatically catalogs all
items within it, and if the chamber is open, you can call up any
such item and have it placed in your hand as a full action.

I have questions that don't have explicit RAW answers. I'm assuming that the Null-Space Chamber (NSC) is a kind of 'bag of holding' of the future, but I'm not familiar enough with BOH rules to answer these.

1: The 'rift' created by the NSC. Is this rift's location relative to the device? Does it follow it? Given the rift is explicitly circular, and so is the device, it seems like the rift may be generated directly on the circular face of the item - though this is not explicitly stated.

2: "Each null-space chamber can carry a set amount of bulk, after which it can no longer be closed (even if it has room left for more material)." Does this mean I can keep storing items in the NSC past its bulk limit (but within the 3x3 ft spatial limit) as long as I keep the rift open?

3: Hypothetically, a PC (Bob) is wielding an active NSC. The NSC is active and laying flat so that the rift is facing upward. Another PC (Annah) stands inside the NSC, so that half their body is inside the NSC and the other half of their body is protruding into the physical plane, above their ally. Does the weight of Annah (inside the NSC) weight down on Bob? Or is Annah effectively weightless? As a more practical application - can my Dragonkin wear an active NSC on his backpack with an ally halfway inside to function as a weight-bearing 'saddle'? Would the ally's weight is act inside the pocket dimension and not on my character?

4: What kind of action is opening/closing a NSC?

5: What happens if a NSC is subjected to an anti-magic field (or dispel effect) of some kind? Does it just close? What if the NSC is over-capacity at that exact moment? Do all objects get spat out? What if a single object is halfway in the rift at that moment? Does it get sliced in half? Spat out?

6: What prevents me from keeping an ally inside a NSC and opening it to let them make attacks from inside?

"When calculating your armor’s hardness and Hit Points, treat it as if its item level were 5 higher."

On a strict reading - would that not simply impart the benefits onto any armor you equip? It doesn't state "when calculating the hardness and Hit Points of armor upgraded with Tensile Reinforcement, treat it as if its item level were 5 higher.", so theoretically you could treat any armor you equip as having Tensile Reinforcement.

Oh I'm not saying crystals aren't weapons. You can totally make that argument. They are in the weapons section, they are on the weapons tables, they are described under weapons, etc.

Ah, my apologies - I got tied up on the wording.

I'm saying it's not the solar weapon you form out of a mote of stellar energy. So what one weapon is made of doesn't effect what another is made of.

"You can seize your solar mote in one hand to form a melee weapon out of stellar energy."
Your solar weapon is made of stellar energy. Period. Tying a silvered dagger to an axe, doesn't make the axe silvered.

While I don't agree with your logic, I can't necessarily discount it either. We have a very limited understanding of how a crystal is constructed and how it interacts with the solarian weapon, so I'm on the fence - it could go either way.

You're not hitting an enemy with an adamantine striking face, so in one interpretation that could strictly rule out any chance of applying adamantine's penetrating effects to the weapon. But for all we know, the solarian weapon may adjust its structure to imitate that of the weapon crystal - in which case the weapon might imitate the hardness and/or density of the adamantine, creating a kind of "pseudo-adamantine" made from light.

But I still think HWalsh makes a point with weapon fusions nonetheless. A weapon fusion is specifically attached to a weapon crystal - not the solarian weapon. In a manner of speaking, you can tie a flaming dagger to a regular axe to get a flaming axe. Given the limited information we have about weapon crystals, I don't think it would be a huge leap for the same principle to apply to special materials.

Fusions just add addition effects that gets imparted to your weapon. The crystal itself isn't the weapon. I've not seen anything that says otherwise.

Yes, you can add fusions (or even fusion seals) to solarian weapon crystals.

Bottom of page here. I think that's the comment HWalsh is referring to, though he can correct me if the devs have made a statement elsewhere.

A weapon fusion is a small, prepackaged add-on that can be attached to any weapon to infuse it with magic.

I assume that Stephens' comment is an example of fusion rules, rather than an exception to them - which by CRB would mean that a Solarian Weapon Crystal is technically a weapon.

The crystal is simply a magic item that enhances the weapon.

I'm a little iffy on this part. You're right in that I'm not going to swing my weapon crystal at an enemy, but Solarian Weapon Crystals can have fusions applied to them. This suggests to me that a weapon crystal is considered a weapon for certain circumstances. Though, I don't know whether or not this would be considered as one of those circumstances.

Though, we do have a few weapons that can be made from adamantine despite lacking a metallic striking face. The Plasma Doshko, Yellow Star Plasma Sword, Tactical Skyfire sword ... these weapons can RAW be constructed from adamantine despite striking an enemy with a contained field of plasma or fire. I don't know how it would be justified in terms of fluff, but if a plasma sword's beam can be adamantine-like, I don't think it's a leap to think that a solar weapon could be similar.

It sounds like you are the GM in this situation however, so if you think it would make your game better to allow it, don't feel constrained by what I say.

Alas, I hath not ventured as far yet. I'm just a player at the moment, and I ran the idea past my GM to see if he liked it. He seemed receptive, but told me to "wait for the Pact Worlds to release" so he could check. I interpreted that as "I'd rather go by official ruling".

Can a Solarian Weapon Crystal be constructed from Adamantine or Cold Iron to gain the associated benefits? Can they be Silvered?

A big point of contention, I'd think, is that Adamantine, Cold Iron and Silver all seem to share the clause of "weapons and ammunition without metal parts can’t be made from adamantine alloy". But I've heard arguments that a crystal could be considered "metal", and my chemistry knowledge isn't enough for me to personally agree or disagree.

Thoughts?